191
the present and praeterite are joined together. In the German translation of the Apocalypse I have designedly translated it, who loves us. And such passages, as I understand, displease many. But the style of John and the taste of the present day are as widely apart as the east and the west. In translating, I do not seek to gratify fastidious ears, but I scrupulously follow John, who wrote altogether in accordance with the sense of the Hebrew. This is a part of the reproach of Christ.1 — avrov) I have everywhere written avrov, with a soft breathing,2 even where it has a reflexive sense, following the example of Erasmus, who indeed, in his editions, almost indiscriminately edits avrov, by way of concession to prejudices, as I imagine, and avrov, even in a reflexive sense, from MSS. The rea- son has been mentioned once for all in the Appar. p. 453 [Ed. ii. p. 93], (Buttigius agreeing with me in his preface to the New Testa- ment) ; and it must be supposed to have been mentioned in each par- ticular passage. Compare therefore on this passage also Appar. Crit. Ed. ii. p. 504. As with the Hebrews *1 and other suffixes have both the relative and reciprocal force of the third person : so the writers of the new Testament use avrov in either sense indiscrimi- nately. And so in this passage, ch. i. 5, avrov altogether refers to Jesus Christ , who hath washed us in His own blood.
6. K ai Irtoir^) The meaning to be expressed was, og ayava Yyxag xai snoiriffr but the former verb with the postpositive3 article [the relative og] has passed into the participle ; the other verb has re- mained, and with it the article (6 = og) which has been absorbed must be understood. — /3a<r/>. siav, /spzTg) Since Wolf has quoted my one edition [as if it were the only one], in reference to many readings, although they are disapproved of by himself (and I believe that he did this with the best intention), I wish the reader to remember, that the same readings are found in other editions cited by me at their
1 kccI hovaavn, and washed ) In truth he who is not washed is unable to dis- charge the office of priest. — V. g.
2 That indeed is done in Ed. maj. and min. of a. 1734, but in the Admonition •prefixed to Ed. man. of a. 1753, my sainted father thus says : — In the pronuncia- tion it is right to imitate the custom of the apostles in preference to that which is recent ; but because in the reflexive use of avrov, not only tiros, but even men of great learning, find a difficulty, I have caused avrov to be printed in almost all those passages where the editions of the Stephens’ so read ; and I wish the more prudent to remember that this is not to be taken as a rule of pronunciation, but rather as an aid to interpretation. You have a proof \ reader , that Bengel was not one who did not know how to yield. — E. B.
* The relative og is sometimes thus termed, in opposition to the demonstra- tive o, which is termed prsepositive. — T